Aims: Pharmaco-invasive percutaneous coronary intervention (PI-PCI) is recommended for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)who are unable to undergo timely primary PCI (pPCI). The present study examined late outcomes after PI-PCI (successful reperfusion followed by scheduled PCI or failed reperfusion and rescue PCI)compared with timely and late pPCI (>120 min from first medical contact).
Methods and results: All patients with STEMI presenting within 12 h of symptom onset, who underwent PCI during their initial hospitalization at Liverpool Hospital (Sydney), from October 2003 to March 2014, were included. Amongst 2091 STEMI patients (80% male), 1077 (52%)underwent pPCI (68% timely, 32% late), and 1014 (48%)received PI-PCI (33% rescue, 67% scheduled). Mortality at 3 years was 11.1% after pPCI (6.7% timely, 20.2% late) and 6.2% after PI-PCI (9.4% rescue, 4.8% scheduled); P < 0.01. After propensity matching, the adjusted mortality hazard ratio (HR) for timely pPCI compared with scheduled PCI was 0.9 (95% CIs 0.4-2.0) and compared with rescue PCI was 0.5 (95% CIs 0.2-0.9). The adjusted mortality HR for late pPCI, compared with scheduled PCI was 2.2 (95% CIs 1.2-3.1)and compared with rescue PCI, it was 1.5 (95% CIs 0.7-2.0).
Conclusion: Patients who underwent late pPCI had higher mortality rates than those undergoing a pharmaco-invasive strategy. Despite rescue PCI being required in a third of patients, a pharmaco-invasive approach should be considered when delays to PCI are anticipated, as it achieves better outcomes than late pPCI.
Keywords: Pharmaco-invasive strategy; Timely primary PCI.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.